Lord Best report

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lord Best report

    For anyone interested -

    Chapter 6 focus on Leasehold..


    Thanks for posting the link. I'll have to read the report.


      Do we need a new regulator?

      Time will tell but my initial view is that agents charges will increase if and when the proposals are implemented. The cost of training and membership of the regulator will be passed on to leaseholders.

      If the regulator suggests a list of fees which may be charged and a set of tariffs, that will become the minimum and then agents are likely to provide extreme examples of those fees being inadequate which is likely to increase the charges.

      More transparency is fine but the report seems to identify the problem of identifying when the agent fails to disclose information. Is it realistic to expect solicitors and accountants to report agents who are instructing them?

      I could not find anything about enfranchisement or forfeiture and only 3 short paragraphs about commonhold.


        Eagle - Lord Best's report was targeted towards regulation (with teeth) and transparency.
        The Select Committee Report and Law Commission focused on the areas you mention above.
        The CMA have just closed their own consultation and have received an overwhelming amount of evidence to process.
        On another note- I see Landlords are potentially in for another hammering (controlled rents).


          We shall have to wait and see, my comment was that the FTT could have been given teeth,

          Transparency in theory exists today through the RICS code of practice, many agents are not complying with it, Detecting the connection between persons associated with agents is not easy. The report appears to recognise the difficulty.

          I think that the landlords and agents ability to introduce money making schemes has been underestimated.


            The FTT has always been skewered. It is symptomatic of the deeply embedded flawed area that is leasehold.
            That's why the true champions of leaseholders - LKP - have always been shunned. They asked to be part of the FTT for example, and were refused. There is too much at stake for too many people.
            Shared ownership/Help to Buy schemes have taken it to a whole new level of abuse.


              Michelle - please do not exaggerate, LKP is not the "true champions of leaseholders", your knowledge of the subject seems to be seriously flawed, please carry out some research and study the history.


                Really? That is not my experience. They have fought hard and campaigned hard for many years for leaseholders. I have witnessed many examples if this in the past year.
                What am I missing?


                  Originally posted by michelle230 View Post
                  Really? That is not my experience. They have fought hard and campaigned hard for many years for leaseholders. I have witnessed many examples if this in the past year.
                  What am I missing?
                  Your knowledge appears to be superficial, you have frequently raised comments as though they were new issues when the problems have existed for decades. You do not appear to have a sense of priorities.

                  Your comment that freeholders will be eager to sell their portfolios is not supported by any evidence.

                  Which Magazine estimated that leaseholders were being overcharged by £700 million per annum in 2011. The Select Committee noted that the leasehold sector is now larger and that figure is likely to be higher.

                  Freeholders and their agents are not going to give up their share of the cake overnight or anytime soon, the chances are that they will be studying new money making schemes.


                    Yes. There is a pool of people whose businesses are based on finding loopholes in the law to extract money from the public for no real service. They tent to be very good at keeping just short of criminal prosecution. As in a military situation, an attacker only has to find one weakness, whereas defenders have to envisage all possible attacks.

                    You get hints at this, but generally for one man businesses, even on the letting side of these forums, where you will find people proposing all sorts of schemes to extract money from properties (not least AirBnB based), or attempting to find holes in things like the tenant fees legislation.

                    A lot of businesses these days aren't predicated on having the skills to provide a service with money being secondary, but treat money as primary and just look for ways to obtain it, whilst keeping just within the law (or not so far out that a prosecution is likely).


                      I have no doubt that there are certain individuals who are employed full time to devise ways of pushing charges to the limit whilst ensuring that it is impossible to prove criminal activity

                      Vague comments about transparency, which cannot be enforced easily if at all and which can be circumvented, are not going to stop overcharging. It seems to be a token effort and there seems to be a general reluctance to tackle the real problem. These reports should follow the money, identify the persons who are benefitting and their connections.


                        That's actually the job of most of the head office people in any consumer facing organisation. The difference here is that there is no valid service being provided.

                        For example, supermarkets, and even franchised petrol stations with convenience shops, produce detailed plans of how products are to be arranged on the shelves. Thatt's done to psychologically tempt you into buying more than you intended, and to buy the high profit branded products.


                          At least with a supermarket or convenience shop, you have a choice, you can choose to go elsewhere.


                            I accept that transparency is better than nothing but can anyone explain how it assists a leaseholder if an agent declares that he receives say 5% commission on an insurance policy? A leaseholder is unlikely to be able to prove that the disclosure is incorrect. To have any meaning at all, someone should carry out spot checks to verify that the information is correct. I do not see that contained within the proposals.

                            Does anyone seriously think that an agent is going to admit to receiving 40% to 60% commission?


                              Carrying out spot checks would require an increase in tax payer spend. No Conservative government is going to sanction that.

                              (As I said elsewhere, I think the country has reached a point where respect for the law is in terminal decline, as a result of not funding pro-active enforcement, to keep taxes low.)


                              Latest Activity


                              • Reply to License to Alter Premium Query
                                by jazzythumper
                                Thanks for all your help LC

                                I spoke to The Leasehold Advisory Service, and have come to the conclusion that we should try and propose / negotiate the following.

                                We note that the you are trying to charge us £15k for the premium to build an extension to our property....
                                15-07-2020, 16:49 PM
                              • License to Alter Premium Query
                                by jazzythumper
                                We previously extended our leasehold flat with a kitchen extension and separate summerhouse, we had the amount that this would increase the value of our flat valued by a chartered surveyor and paid a premium that was approximately 1/3 of the value for the license to alter to be granted.

                                09-07-2020, 11:26 AM
                              • Reply to License to Alter Premium Query
                                by jazzythumper
                                The £15k is the total uplift in value, not profit....
                                15-07-2020, 15:39 PM
                              • Reply to License to Alter Premium Query
                                by Lawcruncher
                                You are in the classic situation of someone who has rights which can only be enforced by action which risks legal costs wholly disproportionate to any benefit which may be obtained.

                                I think the first step is to put the landlord right on the law quoting section 19(2) of the Landlord and...
                                15-07-2020, 11:18 AM
                              • Reply to License to Alter Premium Query
                                by Lawcruncher
                                There are two possibilities:

                                1. The lease has an absolute prohibition on making the alterations the leaseholder wants to carry out. If that is the case there is no obligation on the landlord to give consent. He can demand whatever premium he wants and the leaseholder either accepts or he...
                                15-07-2020, 10:56 AM
                              • Reply to License to Alter Premium Query
                                by Section20z
                                Just do it, let them try and sue you.
                                15-07-2020, 07:29 AM
                              • Reply to License to Alter Premium Query
                                by trespas
                                The £15k you mentioned above - is that the ‘profit’ from doing the works, or the total uplift in value? I.e. is it that your extension costs are, for example, £10k, and the total estimated increase in property value is £25k, and it’s the profit on which that they’re demanding the premium?...
                                15-07-2020, 06:52 AM
                              • Unauthorised lease variation
                                by Stacker
                                Lease requires all leaseholders to pay lessor service charges for insurance so sneaky managing agent tried to get leaseholders to pay broker directly which is an unusual arrangement where its not landlord and tenant and insurance is not paid via service charges to lessor.Could this be classed as an...
                                13-07-2020, 23:14 PM
                              • Reply to Unauthorised lease variation
                                by Macromia
                                Unfortunately I still have no idea real understanding of what the problem is, or what it is that you feel that you need to achieve - because you're not explaining this.

                                Let's be clear:
                                The lease has NOT been varied - so you can forget about that idea.
                                15-07-2020, 06:25 AM
                              • Application to the FTT for determination of breach of covenant?
                                by Tw1982
                                Hi Guys,

                                Wanted to start a separate post with a few legal queries regarding applications to the FTT for a formal determination for a breach of covenant.

                                Firstly, is it called the FTT (LVT) or the property chamber? We know its changed names quite a few times, but would like...
                                13-07-2020, 18:51 PM